the other reactors connected to the one that melted down are still open and operational, they sometimes give tours inside the control room for the melted down reactor. vice and alot of other news sites have been in the meltdown area and report no radiation in the top soil and even got into the buckets of backhoes that were used in the clean up efforts. this stuff boggles the brain.
I am just now listening to your podcasts, but I remember exactly what I was doing when the news broke about the chernobyl nuclear disaster. We were shocked, but not surprised after having been raised with the reality of the Soviet Union and all their nasty actions. I was 23 when it happened.
Boston's population at the time of the Chernobyl accident was around 11.5x the size of Pripyat's 570,000 and a nearby former Nuclear plant had a loss of coolant accident two weeks before Chernobyl though it wasn't shut down permanently until 5/31/2019 where as Chernobyl was taken off the Grid in 2000 also a 5th unit at Chernobyl was around 70% completed when unit 4 exploded and had been due to be completed later in 1986 about 3 years after unit 4 went online in late 1983
Something you touched on, but that doesn't get talked about that often: If there is little or no use of nuclear power worldwide, if anyone uses a nuclear reactor to make plutonium for a bomb, it's pretty hard to claim you were just running a power reactor. That gets much harder to hide. In the end, that may be the best reason of all for phasing out nuclear power. Yes, I know there will be some thorium…er…enthusiasts who will say a thorium molten salt reactor won't generate bomb material, but that's not really true. It certainly creates U-233, which can be used for bombs (although it's never been popular for that, because of some properties, although those arguably can be managed). Also, if you're going to argue that those LFTRs can be used to burn up existing nuclear waste, of course you must realize that such waste is mostly uranium, and when you use it you will be breeding plutonium. Sí, unos problemas pequeños.
That's probably the worst reason to phase out nuclear research and power. Like the worst reason. Let's ban the future of energy the future of us pretty much bc of some ephemeral lame false fear that someone will use a nuclear bomb again.
@@humbertocobian4740 It depends. It's not a remote possibility. I guess if you think "the future energy, the future of us" depends on nuclear power, maybe it's worth the risk. I don't believe it does-quite the opposite. And in the future imagined by the most ardent nuclear advocates, there would be thousands of reactors, maybe many thousands (if your early believe these making small reactors is a practical option-I don't), in my dozens of countries, most of which won't have Rickover-grade staffing, to say the least. As for having "some ephemeral lame false fear that someone will use a nuclear bomb again," I'll just say that sounds especially foolish right about now, with soldiers running around who don't know better than to start digging up radioactive dirt.
@@ronaldgarrison8478 the risk is always there yeah? I mean you can regulate it into the ground and fight against it or we can start to low key ramp up research logistics plans for future reactors for the future. You obviously know more than me on this subject or at least you sound like you do but man what other source of relatively clean energy can we harness? What can possibly replace oil? Synthetic gas? The more I delve into nuclear energy the more I am convinced it is the future.
@@humbertocobian4740 No. It isn't. The future is in renewables, mainly solar and some substantial wind, with a bit of geothermal, hydro (which probably slowly decline), and a few other bits here and there. Yes, it must include a lot of storage, and grids with longer reach and better performance. All of this is coming. The reason for this simple:: The more you have, the cheaper it gets. The only thing it requires is improving mass production over time-something which has a really great track record, over a long time, and for a huge variety of products. OTOH nuclear is not getting cheaper. Yes, I know renewables take a lot of hardware, but when you look at the material inputs, all major energy sources stack up with surprisingly comparable footprints. A coal plant, and all it takes to deliver all that coal, and then scrub the flue gas. All the hardware used in natgas fracking. Huge undersea drilling rigs for oil. Huge dams on rivers. Huge nuclear plants, with their containments and cooling towers, and prodigious use of river water for cooling. Fusion reactors will possibly be the hugest of all, though that remains to be seen. Wind power has those huge blades, hundreds of meters in some cases. Wave power, geothermal wells…yes, those are big projects, too. Solar can be done on scales from milliwatts to gigawatts, but of course, you need huge numbers of panels. So everything takes a lot of hardware, but again, in the end, they're not as different in their requirements as one might think. They do differ, though, very much in other ways. I know there are plans for somehow making cheaper nuclear plants, but the really tough problem is that the laws of physics work against doing this at smaller scales. And if you are only making reactors in the hundreds, maybe thousands eventually, it's very difficult to cost-reduce production. BTW hydropower has some of these same problems. IAC fossil fuels are not going to be getting cheaper, any more than either of us is getting younger. Surely we can agree on that.
13:00 "lethal for 250,000 years." Not really. After, say, 1000 years, maybe less, it's definitely not good for you, but at that stage it won't kill you in any immediate way.
I started hating the adlib stuff. Now it's a fun game. Most of the time it's so insane that it's obviously not true. Sometimes it's the kind of insane that just out there enough to maybe be true. Now I treat it like a game. To Google, or not to Google the crazy shit falling out of your mouth.
I dont know if you read the comments on your youtube channel but i appreciate what you do for all time suckers. They might not be suck worthy, I think you would appreciate the life of the original pimp, Iceberg Slim, who coined the phrase "A pimp is happy when his hoes are giggling, it means they are still asleep", his autobiography is on youtube, i suggest opening that on one tab and opening "inner city blues" or "diamond in the back" on another tab and playing both simultaneously.....or perhaps the guy that started the organized African-American gang wave, his name escapes me at the moment, but i seem to remember he john wick style killed a building full of gangbangers so he could steal a 5 GALLON BUCKET of PCP.
Wtf? Am I the only person who gets all their podcasts from UA-cam??? These videos should have WAAAAAY more views!
Thank you! :) We haven't been advertising on yotube! You should check out Timesuck Podcast on iTunes or The timesuck website and mobile app!
Bang the City i got you don’t trip
the other reactors connected to the one that melted down are still open and operational, they sometimes give tours inside the control room for the melted down reactor. vice and alot of other news sites have been in the meltdown area and report no radiation in the top soil and even got into the buckets of backhoes that were used in the clean up efforts. this stuff boggles the brain.
I am just now listening to your podcasts, but I remember exactly what I was doing when the news broke about the chernobyl nuclear disaster. We were shocked, but not surprised after having been raised with the reality of the Soviet Union and all their nasty actions. I was 23 when it happened.
Good suck! I'm suprised that there was no mention of the "elephants foot."
P.S. Love the Slepnir reference!
Tsutomu Yamaguchi survived both Atomic Bomb blasts in Japan and lived to 93 years old. Talk about wrong place, wrong time!
Boston's population at the time of the Chernobyl accident was around 11.5x the size of Pripyat's 570,000 and a nearby former Nuclear plant had a loss of coolant accident two weeks before Chernobyl though it wasn't shut down permanently until 5/31/2019 where as Chernobyl was taken off the Grid in 2000 also a 5th unit at Chernobyl was around 70% completed when unit 4 exploded and had been due to be completed later in 1986 about 3 years after unit 4 went online in late 1983
14 minutes in and you haven't even started on the accident. Cya later
like a click bait
Something you touched on, but that doesn't get talked about that often: If there is little or no use of nuclear power worldwide, if anyone uses a nuclear reactor to make plutonium for a bomb, it's pretty hard to claim you were just running a power reactor. That gets much harder to hide. In the end, that may be the best reason of all for phasing out nuclear power.
Yes, I know there will be some thorium…er…enthusiasts who will say a thorium molten salt reactor won't generate bomb material, but that's not really true. It certainly creates U-233, which can be used for bombs (although it's never been popular for that, because of some properties, although those arguably can be managed). Also, if you're going to argue that those LFTRs can be used to burn up existing nuclear waste, of course you must realize that such waste is mostly uranium, and when you use it you will be breeding plutonium. Sí, unos problemas pequeños.
That's probably the worst reason to phase out nuclear research and power. Like the worst reason. Let's ban the future of energy the future of us pretty much bc of some ephemeral lame false fear that someone will use a nuclear bomb again.
@@humbertocobian4740 It depends. It's not a remote possibility. I guess if you think "the future energy, the future of us" depends on nuclear power, maybe it's worth the risk. I don't believe it does-quite the opposite. And in the future imagined by the most ardent nuclear advocates, there would be thousands of reactors, maybe many thousands (if your early believe these making small reactors is a practical option-I don't), in my dozens of countries, most of which won't have Rickover-grade staffing, to say the least.
As for having "some ephemeral lame false fear that someone will use a nuclear bomb again," I'll just say that sounds especially foolish right about now, with soldiers running around who don't know better than to start digging up radioactive dirt.
@@ronaldgarrison8478 the risk is always there yeah? I mean you can regulate it into the ground and fight against it or we can start to low key ramp up research logistics plans for future reactors for the future. You obviously know more than me on this subject or at least you sound like you do but man what other source of relatively clean energy can we harness? What can possibly replace oil? Synthetic gas? The more I delve into nuclear energy the more I am convinced it is the future.
@@humbertocobian4740 No. It isn't. The future is in renewables, mainly solar and some substantial wind, with a bit of geothermal, hydro (which probably slowly decline), and a few other bits here and there. Yes, it must include a lot of storage, and grids with longer reach and better performance. All of this is coming.
The reason for this simple:: The more you have, the cheaper it gets. The only thing it requires is improving mass production over time-something which has a really great track record, over a long time, and for a huge variety of products. OTOH nuclear is not getting cheaper. Yes, I know renewables take a lot of hardware, but when you look at the material inputs, all major energy sources stack up with surprisingly comparable footprints. A coal plant, and all it takes to deliver all that coal, and then scrub the flue gas. All the hardware used in natgas fracking. Huge undersea drilling rigs for oil. Huge dams on rivers. Huge nuclear plants, with their containments and cooling towers, and prodigious use of river water for cooling. Fusion reactors will possibly be the hugest of all, though that remains to be seen. Wind power has those huge blades, hundreds of meters in some cases. Wave power, geothermal wells…yes, those are big projects, too. Solar can be done on scales from milliwatts to gigawatts, but of course, you need huge numbers of panels. So everything takes a lot of hardware, but again, in the end, they're not as different in their requirements as one might think. They do differ, though, very much in other ways.
I know there are plans for somehow making cheaper nuclear plants, but the really tough problem is that the laws of physics work against doing this at smaller scales. And if you are only making reactors in the hundreds, maybe thousands eventually, it's very difficult to cost-reduce production. BTW hydropower has some of these same problems. IAC fossil fuels are not going to be getting cheaper, any more than either of us is getting younger. Surely we can agree on that.
13:00 "lethal for 250,000 years." Not really. After, say, 1000 years, maybe less, it's definitely not good for you, but at that stage it won't kill you in any immediate way.
I am laughing with you Dan, and I am the only one in my room right now, hahahaha. Man that review sucks, thanks for sucking the life into it!
Hail Nimrod.
I started hating the adlib stuff. Now it's a fun game. Most of the time it's so insane that it's obviously not true. Sometimes it's the kind of insane that just out there enough to maybe be true. Now I treat it like a game. To Google, or not to Google the crazy shit falling out of your mouth.
its not great but its not terrible
New-klee-uhr. Not "nucular".
Too many syllables. For me, it's "nook."
Always made me cringe when W butchered it too.
Chernobyl was purely man made
I dont know if you read the comments on your youtube channel but i appreciate what you do for all time suckers. They might not be suck worthy, I think you would appreciate the life of the original pimp, Iceberg Slim, who coined the phrase "A pimp is happy when his hoes are giggling, it means they are still asleep", his autobiography is on youtube, i suggest opening that on one tab and opening "inner city blues" or "diamond in the back" on another tab and playing both simultaneously.....or perhaps the guy that started the organized African-American gang wave, his name escapes me at the moment, but i seem to remember he john wick style killed a building full of gangbangers so he could steal a 5 GALLON BUCKET of PCP.
Thanks for your suggestions Samuel! :)
you're talking endlessly for the first 10 mins driving me MAD... WTF